This is not the first time that there would be found to be a difference between a level of support showing in polls when no election is expected and a desire to have an election to vote in that direction.

It would not be the first time to see a politician misread such polls. For a great Canadian example, just ask former Ontario Premier David Peterson.

If a couple divorces, then reconsiders, they need to get married again. If only one of the two reconsiders then that can be a bit more difficult.

I don't think that the UK really has the option to say "whoops, bit of a mistake, please nevermind Article 50!!". If the UK wants back in, wouldn't the proper next step be to apply for EU membership? I believe that's actually Article 49. But people still seem to believe that all the UK has to do at this point is ask for a re-do, and I don't think it's quite that simple.

Considering how incompetent Teresa May and her government are, why can't they just say, "Brexit? We can't do it. Sorry, but governments break the will of the elected majority frequently and this is one of these times. Sorry, but we don't have the brains to negotiate in Britain's best interest..."

why can't they just say, "Brexit? We can't do it. Sorry, but governments break the will of the elected majority frequently and this is one of these times. Sorry, but we don't have the brains to negotiate in Britain's best interest..."

Because they've already gone ahead with Article 50 -- the equivalent of signing the divorce papers.

You're right that they could have ignored the results and chosen not to invoke Article 50 (at which point it would be a solely domestic concern for the UK), but once the Article is invoked, it's done.

If, at this point, they're unable to negotiate in the best interest of the UK then they've still signed the divorce papers but perhaps cannot hope to divide the matrimonial properties to their satisfaction. The divorce is still final, but the EU keeps the boat, the summer house and the pensions, and the UK keeps their comic book collection, their mother's jewelry and the dog. That's where they're at right now. Not "shall we leave?" but "what shall the terms be?"

Anyhoo, I'm not professing to be a European lawyer, so if I'm wrong, and all the UK has to do is say "my bad", then anyone is free to say so (hopefully including a plausible link to whatever loophole there is to Article 50 that nobody seems aware of).

It is the narrative of social democracy, of economic demand management, of public spending and public goods, of nationalised projects in the name of the society at large, of education from cradle to grave.

It’s a narrative that challenges the leitmotif of the past 40 years: the narrative of TINA – there is no alternative. That’s no alternative to the neoliberal approach to a small state and a free market.

Theresa May sought to relaunch her premiership on Wednesday by offering voters the “British dream” but the most personal speech of her premiership was overshadowed by a prankster handing her a P45, an incessant cough, and problems with the backdrop.

...With the Conservatives already weakened by the loss of a parliamentary majority in June’s snap election, the accident-prone presentation made some in the party question how long the prime minister could carry on. One MP said colleagues were asking: “Is it going to improve over the next 18 months?” and added: “It’s hard to see how it can.”

...Later, the set behind the prime minister, which read, “Building a country that works for everyone”, began to fall apart, with an F and E dropping to the ground while she was still speaking.

...May concluded her speech by demanding an end to party infighting after a week dominated by stories of division and questions of a leadership challenge following interventions on Brexit by Boris Johnson. She said it was ordinary working people that the party should be thinking of – “not worrying about our job security, but theirs”.

​"Ordinary working people", a phrase made famous by our very own Ed Broadbent. Goes to show that 'ordinary working people' can mean anything to anyone.

Anyhow, I suspect Theresa May is not long for the Conservative leadership. From the last election results, to the current open scorn of Boris "Dimwit" Johnson, I think we can start counting the days.

"The enrichment of the rich and the empowerment of the powerful is the doctrine of these transatlanic extremists; and they don't care how many people have to die, how badly society degenerates, how low the quality of life becomes, as long as Mammon's will be done. They are vile and wretched creatures, eaters of their own souls, hollowers of their own humanity. We are living in an age when all the masks are coming off and our rulers are showing their true faces at last: rapacious, ravening, cruel and implacable."

Multiple sources with links to UK intelligence report that Russian corruption of the Brexit vote is far worse than previously thought. The referendum on remaining part of the EU received so much illegal foreign money and influence from Russia, these sources say, that UK intelligence is minded to recommend to Theresa May’s government that the Brexit vote be redone, as it is not thought that the vote was ‘free and fair’. This term is often used in Great Britain to describe a legitimate election process.

Multiple sources with links to UK intelligence report that Russian corruption of the Brexit vote is far worse than previously thought.

A fascinating conundrum for progressives (there or here) who regret the Brexit "Yes". They can have a do-over, but only logically after agreeing that the Russians had another "mouse hole" in the UK. Have at it.

The government of the UK doesn't really have to do anything. The referendum was not binding. All they have to do is ignore the results, perhaps with a statement about such a tiny majority asking for major changes in the makeup of the country. I think at this point they would probably have a majority onside.

The government of the UK doesn't really have to do anything. The referendum was not binding. All they have to do is ignore the results, perhaps with a statement about such a tiny majority asking for major changes in the makeup of the country. I think at this point they would probably have a majority onside.

You are right technically, but I think overturning a vote requires another to be seen as legitimate. The proof of the opinion of the people would be a referendum.

The problem is that if they do not have a plan to make the next vote fair, how do they go into it?

The wider problem here is widespread and one of technology and communications. The focus on Russia is distracting from the need to make elections about the people rather than propaganda and money. Over a generation, the problem has grown to the point that elections cannot claim any certainty of legitimacy.

The US (except for the beneficiaries) are upset that this was Russia. They did not mind the decline and stealing of the legitimacy of their elections by domestic forces. They did not mind their government doing it to others. They had a fit when the Russians apparently schooled them in their own game. In the US, the problem is they found themselves without the power to counter the efforts of another country in their own electoral process. This did not come from a US desire to have legitimate, fair elections.

The UK is facing the reality that they no longer know how to hold an election that will stand up to scrutiny. I am not sure that Canada can either. This is a crisis of technology and social media where hacking social networks has this impact. They are designed to be organic and largely equal for voices. They were not designed to be taken over by large entities. The concept of greater democracy and accountability through organic social networks is being exposes as a lie.

Large organizations and countries also have a global hacking problem with computer systems and networks as well. These are similar in many ways.

I don't have an answer to the problem but one will not come from a focus on an individual perpetrator but rather on the problem.

I think the US would be more willing to weaponize this to their own ends than change it but maybe I am being pessimistic?

The US (except for the beneficiaries) are upset that this was Russia. They did not mind the decline and stealing of the legitimacy of their elections by domestic forces. They did not mind their government doing it to others. They had a fit when the Russians apparently schooled them in their own game. In the US, the problem is they found themselves without the power to counter the efforts of another country in their own electoral process. This did not come from a US desire to have legitimate, fair elections.

The UK is facing the reality that they no longer know how to hold an election that will stand up to scrutiny. I am not sure that Canada can either. This is a crisis of technology and social media where hacking social networks has this impact. They are designed to be organic and largely equal for voices. They were not designed to be taken over by large entities. The concept of greater democracy and accountability through organic social networks is being exposes as a lie.

I find something curiously Orwellian in this framing of electoral "legitimacy".

No, bear with me here. My standard for a legitimate election is based on (what I consider to be) fairly objective factors relating to the ability to cast ballots and fair counting of the ballots that are cast, with secondary concern being given to structural factors like the electoral system. Is every adult citizen who wants to able to cast a secret ballot? Are those who are ineligible to vote (for reasons like non-citizenship, being 6 years old, or being dead) prohibited from voting? Are those who vote threatened with being personally identified and retaliated against, whether within the legal system or by vigilante groups that are effectively permitted to operate?

Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, and Jacques Parizeau appear to share a different idea of what constitutes a legitimate election. Are the people who voted people I personally feel shouldn't have been allowed to vote, though they're legally permitted to? Most relevant in this discussion: did they vote (or refrain from voting) after hearing lies and believing them, or after hearing the truth, but from a source I think they shouldn't have had access to?

I hope it's obvious why the last one concerns me, but I'll try to clarify it further. The allegations of Russian "hacking" of elections aren't, as they sound, allegations of Russians hijacking voting machines and submitting false results. They're allegations of Russia publishing legitimate but embarrassing private emails to shift voter perception, or of Russia publishing outright fabrications that those naive voters believed, but should have (in the minds of Clinton/Cameron) been prevented from reading.

Personally, I don't believe any politician has a right to determine the information level of the electorate, or that either voters being uninformed of something that'd make them pro-your side or being informed of something (even something false) that'd make them anti-your side makes an election "illegitimate". Once that door's open, it's hard to consider any election legitimate.

The government of the UK doesn't really have to do anything. The referendum was not binding. All they have to do is ignore the results, perhaps with a statement about such a tiny majority asking for major changes in the makeup of the country. I think at this point they would probably have a majority onside.

But the majority of Conservative voters would not be onside. Those are the voters the Conservative government worries about in order to remain electorally viable. The whole Brexit debacle has been caused by the Conservative Party's partisan and reckless attempt to keep their voters onside.

To Rev Pesky's point that the Brexit vote was not binding, yes that was true in itself. But when the UK Parliament invoked Article 50, they made it binding. I agree that the Brexit margin was too slim for something as significant, however HM Government has to respect the will of the people.

Now, the Labour leadership have said that they fully support the EU, finally realizing that there are good things about the EU in terms of workers' rights, minimum wages, law courts, food standards, open markets, etc.

From my reading of it, Brexit will likely come unravelled over the Irish border. The Ulster DUP want to keep their border open with Eire and keep to the terms of the Good Friday Agreement. This means that Britain has to essentially stay in the EU. Britain is not going to jettison Ulster for the cause of Brexit. If the hard right Brexiteers in the Tory Party want to cut Ulster adrift, Theresa May will lose the DUP support, and the Tories will fall in Parliament, quite possibly leading to a Labour government.

Word has it that support for Remain has to get up to 60% before they will make a U-turn on its own merits. It is not there yet.

I suspect the outcome may have been different if the outcome had been binding.

Perhaps. But are you suggesting that those potential voters who stayed home and watched the footie instead of voting would have voted if they'd known that the government would actually do what the vote told them to? If so, I have to wonder what they thought the government was supposed to do when more people said "leave" than "stay"? Assuming the government would ignore a "leave" majority was a bit of an inexplicable gamble.

...are you suggesting that those potential voters who stayed home and watched the footie instead of voting would have voted if they'd known that the government would actually do what the vote told them to?

​Not necessarily. The people who voted may have voted differently than they did. I think there was a bit of a sense of hitting out at the government just because it felt good to do so. Perhaps in a similar way that people will vote in a by-election that won't bring down the government, but will 'send a message'. As close as the vote was, it wouldn't have taken much of a swing to change the outcome.